In a recent development reported at SteynOnline.com, Michael E. Mann, known for his controversial “hockey stick” graph and his demeanor of lawfare, has been ordered to personally contribute to the legal expenses of his lengthy lawsuit against Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). This case, initiated over a decade ago, gained significant attention due to its implications for free speech and scientific debate.

Initially, Mann testified that he had not personally funded his legal actions, leaving the sources of his financial support unclear. Early in the case, an Anti-SLAPP motion—designed to prevent lawsuits aimed at silencing public discourse—was denied by Judge Natalia Combs-Greene, whose primary expertise lay in landlord-tenant disputes. This decision was upheld by a subsequent judge, complicating the defense’s efforts.

Seeking resolution, Steyn advocated for an immediate trial to clear his name, filing counterclaims and requesting separation from his co-defendants. However, Mann opposed this move, leading to a stay as the appeals process advanced all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. During this time, Steyn published a compilation of critiques from over 100 scientists who questioned Mann’s work, particularly the methodology behind the “hockey stick” graph.

Over time, National Review successfully had certain charges dismissed at the appellate level, with remaining charges dropped after discovery. Despite raising significant funds from supporters to defend Steyn, National Review eventually distanced itself, suggesting that Steyn was acting independently. Similarly, CEI employed similar arguments to exit the case, leaving Steyn and CEI writer Rand Simberg to proceed alone.

In the end, National Review filed a motion seeking partial reimbursement of legal fees from Mann under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The recent ruling, requiring Mann to personally bear some of the financial burden, represents a small but significant shift in the prolonged legal battle. I applaud the ruling.

But, based on past history, he will probably try to weasel out of it like he did after losing the lawsuit with Dr. Tim Ball. Mann has lost three times in the past, this makes four.

Jonathan Cook is a journalist formerly based in Nazareth, previously a staff writer for the Guardian and Observer.

From Wikipaedia:

In 2011, Cook received the Martha Gellhorn special award for journalism, “for his work on the Middle East”.The award citation said Cook’s work on Palestine and Israel made him “one of the reliable truth-tellers in the Middle East”

(Martha Gellhorn was a Jewish novelist, married to Ernest Hemingway, who covered Arab-Israeli conflicts for the Atlantic Monthly in the 60s & 70s.)

His courageous stand in favour of Palestine makes him the sworn enemy of the Guardian and the rest of the British media, alongside other winners of the Gellhorn prize like John Pilger and Julian Assange.

I’m a great admirer of Cook, so I was surprised to find that he had blocked me on X/Twitter. I must have said something critical under one of his posts I suppose, but what? Blowed if I can remember.

There’s a clue here in a tweet by Cook from nine hours ago:

@Jonathan_K_Cook The West is addicted to economic “growth”. That growth depends on burning more fossil fuels. Much of the oil comes from the Middle East. We need to keep colonising that region through military violence to control the oil. California and Gaza: two sides of the same holocaust.

We can all agree with the first 3 sentences, I imagine. 

The 4th is clearly false. We don’t need to keep colonising the Middle East to control their oil. There’s plenty of oil in the US, Russia, Greenland and elsewhere. Only mad US neo-Cons like John Bolton and Bush father & son think that we need to colonise the Middle East. And the very leftwing Jonathan Cook, apparently.

The fifth sentence:

“California and Gaza: two sides of the same holocaust”

is beyond belief. 

Comparing the genocide in Gaza to the Holocaust is normally considered off-limits. 45,000 is quite a small number compared to 6 million, and I speak as someone who forces himself to look at pictures of children with their limbs blown off every single day. 

Cook’s argument seems to be that both the genocide in Gaza and the Californian fires are the result of global warming. It’s perfectly possible that Netanyahu realises that Israel’s continuing growth depends on burning more fossil fuels, and that his genocide in Gaza has the aim of grabbing the oil which exists offshore from Gaza. However, it seems quite a leap to blame fossil fuels themselves. 

As for California, and the “holocaust” of five deaths reported so far, it’s possible that the wind blowing off the desert that has been blamed for the fires is drier than it would have been if 2024 hadn’t been a very hot year. But even if global warming is a myth, it would still be the case that roughly half the years will always be warmer than the year before, meaning that half the time, the vegetation will be drier than it would have been otherwise. Maybe some statistician could calculate the number of millionaires’ houses that wouldn’t have burnt down if 2024 hadn’t been warmer than 2023? That should silence the deniers.

The logical conclusion from this is that someone so completely off the wall as to compare a perfectly normal forest fire that has killed five people so far to the Holocaust can’t be trusted on anything.

I refuse to draw that conclusion, and continue to admire Cook for the courage and honesty of his reporting from Palestine. The fact that he can’t tell the difference between global warming and global warmongering is troubling, but doesn’t reflect on his moral qualities.   

I just want to know why this raving loony blocked me on X.